View Poll Results: Should The Filibuster Be Removed

Voters
42. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    2 4.76%
  • No

    34 80.95%
  • No, but it should be reformed

    6 14.29%
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 68

Thread: Removing the Filibuster

  1. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 10:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Removing the Filibuster

    Thread thanks.

    I found this particularly interesting:

    Filibusters were particularly useful to Southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation, including anti-lynching legislation, until cloture was invoked after a fifty-seven day filibuster against the Civil Right Act of 1964. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or sixty of the current one hundred senators.

    These were Democrats correct?
    Last edited by Truth Detector; 03-26-09 at 01:37 PM.

  2. #32
    Guru

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,339

    Re: Removing the Filibuster

    Quote Originally Posted by donc View Post
    Wasn’t the nuclear option (bypassing Dems filibuster) what contributed to the ending of Newt Gingrich's career and helped get Clinton another term as President? The same thing could happen here, anyone that is perceived to have had the brain fart idea of bypassing the filibuster can kiss his career in the Senate goodbye. Rightfully so.

    That being said its been used by both parties in the past, Clinton's tax increases in 1993 and Bushes tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. My opinion is it is being used as leverage, leaving the idea dangling all the while having no intention of using it.

    In the meantime keep feeding RNC money to Minnesota hoping in a vain attempt at blocking number 59 from being seated.
    Gingrich was a Representative not a Senator. The House does not have the filibuster.

  3. #33
    Rockin' In The Free World
    the makeout hobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Last Seen
    04-24-14 @ 04:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    7,102

    Re: Removing the Filibuster

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Thread thanks.

    I found this particularly interesting:

    Filibusters were particularly useful to Southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation, including anti-lynching legislation, until cloture was invoked after a fifty-seven day filibuster against the Civil Right Act of 1964. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or sixty of the current one hundred senators.

    These were Democrats correct?
    Do you care about anything other than trying to score cheap political shots?

    As for why it should be kept, the answer is simple. It preserves the rights of the minority. It ensures the majority will not trample the minority in passing legislation. By slowing down legislation, it allows for greater debate, and hopefully more meaningful debate; it helps ensure that laws are not enacted in the spur of the moment, or in a burst of partisan outrage.
    I'm sure very few people have a problem with making sure debate is allowed. The minority should have as long as is reasonably needed to discuss the merits of a bill. But that's not what filibusters are usually used for. They're used to keep a bill from passing entirely. They make sure the majority party can't get anything done, more often than not. If they were just used to further legitimate debate, that'd be one thing, but it isn't the case. Can you give me the last time the minority started a filibuster so they could actually discuss the bill?

    Actually, the fillibuster is exactly in the spirit of the constitution. The founding fathers were not all of one mind when the constitution was ratified and some of the most heated political debate came from the very writing of our constitution, that process was based upon argument and concession, the fillibuster is merely a stalling tactic to see who can outlast it to get their bill passed, and I wouldn't have it any other way as I see the best thing for us is a congress too deadlocked to do anything to us in the form of unsuitable legislation. The best reason to keep the fillibuster is to prevent majority rule, which is not our system of governance, whether I agree with the side being fillibustered or not I prefer to have multiple opinions with the appropriate checks and balances, plus, there have historically been some hilarious uses of the fillibuster such as reading the phone book and other ridiculous stalls, it's high comedy at it's best.
    Historically, that was the case. It used to be that one person had to actually talk for the entire time. The rules have changed since, so that now all they have to do is to vote no on cloture for a bill. No speaking or stalling is actually needed. They can delay a bill indefinitely if need be. I'd be ok with changing back to the "Mister Smith" rules, but I don't see it happening. And the founding fathers did want majority rule. That's the whole point of our government: Majority Rule with respect to Minority Rights.

    This begs the question, why is this an issue NOW for you? Do you think a rubber stamp congress is a good thing? Would you feel the same if Republicans were in charge?
    Did you even read my OP? I said that I would feel the same if the Republicans were in charge. Zyph is more or less right. Now being on the other end of things has made me sit down and actually evaluate the filibuster and its merit. Like I said, it just doesn't seem in the spirit of the founding fathers, or representative democracy. I've decided that the filibuster in its present form is overused and detrimental, and I'll keep that position when Dems are the minority again.
    The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet the Makeout Hobo, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

  4. #34
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 06:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: Removing the Filibuster

    Quote Originally Posted by the makeout hobo View Post
    I'm sure very few people have a problem with making sure debate is allowed. The minority should have as long as is reasonably needed to discuss the merits of a bill. But that's not what filibusters are usually used for. They're used to keep a bill from passing entirely. They make sure the majority party can't get anything done, more often than not. If they were just used to further legitimate debate, that'd be one thing, but it isn't the case. Can you give me the last time the minority started a filibuster so they could actually discuss the bill?
    Filibusters as such are not about actual "discussion"--they are meant to slow the process down. I venture to say no filibuster was launched with an intention to further discuss a matter before the Senate; they are launched to stop a matter before the Senate.

    Being the cynic that I am, I tend to be of the belief that, when in doubt, Congress does the greater good by not passing legislation than by passing legislation. I am quite happy with the current filibuster system for that reason; anything which impedes the ability of Congress to pass legislation is a public good. Doesn't matter if it's Democrat or Republican majority--a filibuster is a good thing.

  5. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Removing the Filibuster

    Quote Originally Posted by the makeout hobo View Post
    Recently, the Senate Republicans have been filibustering almost every single bill coming through the Senate. They've imposed a de facto 60 vote thresh hold to get anything passed.
    You were happy with it when the Democrats did it, so enjoy your turn in the barrel.

    When the Democrats stop trying to pass bills that are going to hurt the country, maybe the Republicans will stop filibustering them.

    The Democrats were fillibustering bills that were going to help the country, if I can recall the few they tried it on, not to mention their repeated threats to filibuster judges that would use the Constitution as their guide for judging cases, not their political alignment.

  6. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Removing the Filibuster

    Quote Originally Posted by the makeout hobo View Post
    It could just as easily be used to stop someone trying to roll laws back though, it is a two edged sword. And don't forget, it goes against the concept of American Democracy.
    It does?

    You are aware that the US Senate originally was an appointed body, not an elected one, right?

    That means American "democracy" had, as one of the co-equal halves of the legislature making laws, a group of un-elected representatives of the states, not the people.

    So how is it contrary to this mystical principle of American "democracy" you believe in that this unelected Senate could not also require tht a super majority vote be required to end the debate on bills? Would this not therefore be even MORE representative of the will of the states than a simple majority, since if the states are split nearly 50/50 on an issue, does it not raise more contention when it's passed?

    But do remember...the Senators aren't supposed to be "congressmen" with state-wide constituencies, they're supposed to represent the whole state, not just the people who bought them.

  7. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Removing the Filibuster

    I voted, "No, reform" on the basis that judicial nominations and other presidential appointees should not be subject to filibuster.

  8. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 10:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Removing the Filibuster

    Quote: Originally Posted by Truth Detector
    Thread thanks.

    I found this particularly interesting:

    Filibusters were particularly useful to Southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation, including anti-lynching legislation, until cloture was invoked after a fifty-seven day filibuster against the Civil Right Act of 1964. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or sixty of the current one hundred senators.

    These were Democrats correct?


    Quote Originally Posted by the makeout hobo View Post
    Do you care about anything other than trying to score cheap political shots?
    Your desperate drama aside, what part of my question was a cheap political shot? Your answer certainly will provide amusing entertainment.

  9. #39
    Rockin' In The Free World
    the makeout hobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Last Seen
    04-24-14 @ 04:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    7,102

    Re: Removing the Filibuster

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    It does?

    You are aware that the US Senate originally was an appointed body, not an elected one, right?

    That means American "democracy" had, as one of the co-equal halves of the legislature making laws, a group of un-elected representatives of the states, not the people.

    So how is it contrary to this mystical principle of American "democracy" you believe in that this unelected Senate could not also require tht a super majority vote be required to end the debate on bills? Would this not therefore be even MORE representative of the will of the states than a simple majority, since if the states are split nearly 50/50 on an issue, does it not raise more contention when it's passed?

    But do remember...the Senators aren't supposed to be "congressmen" with state-wide constituencies, they're supposed to represent the whole state, not just the people who bought them.
    It's contrary to the principles because the founding fathers at no point claimed they wanted a supermajority, and there's been no push by the people and the states as a whole to change that. Yes, an issue that passes 50/50 still raises contention, but that's going to happen even with 60/40 votes. The senate, elected or unelected, could choose to require a supermajority, but they could also require that the bill sponsors hop on one leg. The point is, in America, the majority rules, unless specifically stated otherwise (e.g., the majority of the EC rules). If the rule is unconstitutional, its the job of the courts to step in, but unless that happens, that's how it was intended to work.
    The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet the Makeout Hobo, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

  10. #40
    Rockin' In The Free World
    the makeout hobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Last Seen
    04-24-14 @ 04:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    7,102

    Re: Removing the Filibuster

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    You were happy with it when the Democrats did it, so enjoy your turn in the barrel.

    When the Democrats stop trying to pass bills that are going to hurt the country, maybe the Republicans will stop filibustering them.

    The Democrats were fillibustering bills that were going to help the country, if I can recall the few they tried it on, not to mention their repeated threats to filibuster judges that would use the Constitution as their guide for judging cases, not their political alignment.
    If you noticed, I said that I want to repeal it, knowing fully well that it will affect both parties. I'm consciously agreeing that we should limit a tool that my party has used and will use in the future. I'm not being partisan about this, why can't you try to do the same?
    The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet the Makeout Hobo, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •